Trading free agents and RFA tags

[Henry (Cleveland Nationals)]

Drew- interesting, I don't remember that but maybe that was before my time. Seems a bit strange that is allowed, do you remember the precedent? If there is one I'm happy for it to happen here but maybe we should have a vote to determine if it should be allowed going forward?

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

There's nothing to vote on here.

Franchise Tags - must be applied and tagged to a player BEFORE a trade. Each team does only get 1 FT per year.

RFA Tags - can be applied before a trade, OR after a trade if a new owner wants to take a chance. Each team gets only 2 RFA tags per year.

[Henry (Cleveland Nationals)]

I do think there is something to debate. My personal view is that a pending free agent shouldn't be allowed to be traded. If someone wants to RFA them and trade the tagged player after that's fine - they have used one of their tags, and therefore something is given up to get something back. But allowing vanilla FAs to be to be traded is just a free lunch, it's just not realistic at all. It also reduces the incentive to trade before the trade deadline. I don't remember any case of this having happened so I figure it is an open question.

[Drew (Chicago Blue Jays)]

I would be fine with debating it, but it has happened at least 8-10 times across DD1 and DD2.

[Chuck (Philadelphia Astros)]

It is no big deal. I did not see anything in the constitution that prevents those kinds of trades. I would be "OK" with a debate.

[Henry (Cleveland Nationals)]

Definitely not saying it's a big deal and not worried either way about the case of Forsythe.

I just think that if a player I owned prior to the end of the season has become a free agent, he isn't mine to trade, he is a free agent. I didn't think a rule needed to exist to stipulate it, I just took it as self-evident. If I apply a tag permitting a certain restrictive right, I could then trade that right, and that makes sense. But without that tag in place, I don't see it makes sense for me to be allowed to trade a free agent to someone, the player should be free as the name implies.

Just my 2c, would be interested to hear others' thoughts on the topic.

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

Let's please move this to another rules discussion thread. Thanks.

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

discussion moved from Trades board

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

Well said Henry. I now agree with you. If a player is a free agent then he's not the owner's property to trade, period.

IF a tag has already been applied that's different. I think we need to look at this.

[Deleted]

So can we or can't we? There are trades now on the board so I'm assuming we can, but I also know what assuming gets you. :-)

[Deleted]

I understand Henry's point however I disagree. Since an RFA tag can't be traded and expires once the period ends and does not carry over from year to year the tag itself has value. In the NBA teams trade FA all the time because a guy can normally get a higher salary from his own team. Since the tag itself can't be traded you should be able to trade a FA to another team with or without the tag being applied. If doing this had no value then no one would give anything up to acquire him then. As an example I only have 1 RFA player right now. I'd much rather give up a mid level prospect to acquire a pending FA and know I can match any offer rather than allow the tag to expire

[Henry (Cleveland Nationals)]

I have two unused RFA tags in DD3 and it's my fault for not forward planning enough that I can't have use of them. I just think this is the kind of thing that needs to be planned for before the trade deadline during the season... Don't know much about NBA so can't comment but just seems weird to me as I'd have thought he isn't yours to trade the moment the season is over, unless he is restricted...

[Deleted]

I personally think this is all so convoluted that it needs to be resolved, possibly even before this season starts. But the precedent has been set that it CAN be done; whether it's agreed upon is another matter that we should all discuss. Scott, thoughts?

[Deleted]

Still don't see it as an issue and I'll give you a real hypothetical

I promoted 4 top 100 prospects so their contacts will all expire at the same time. When that year comes your telling me I have to trade one of them before the trade deadline possibly during a Championship run weakening my team because there is no way I can keep all 4??? Doesn't seem reasonable or fair.

[Henry (Cleveland Nationals)]

Yes, I had assumed that was exactly how it works. In this league at least I have done an ok job designing my roster with future FT and RFA considerations in mind, and had taken it as part of the game... It's a nice aspect to the whole thing

[Deleted]

I understood I wouldn't have the ability to keep all 4 at the same time I just feel my ownership doesn't end until they sign a new contract which makes their rights tradeable. If people think it's an issue then we should put it to a vote. I'm happy to comply with whatever the rule is going forward just want it clarified going forward so I can plan accordingly

[Henry (Cleveland Nationals)]

100% agree on that! Whatever the majority goes with, absolutely happy to play along accordingly

[Henry (Cleveland Nationals)]

And Jon, I also agree with you by the way. Happy for trades posted up till now to go through as there is precedent

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

Then let's just keep things the way they are. If you had a player whose last year was 2016, and he's already been dropped from your Fantrax roster, you're saying he's still your property to trade? I guess I'm OK with the majority and keeping status quo to keep things as simple as possible.

[Henry (Cleveland Nationals)]

Why can't we just vote on it? Only 5 or so people have voiced their opinions

[Deleted]

Ideally if we were starting from scratch and the league was to mirror MLB as close as possible, a player would be a free agent when his contract expires at the end of the regular season and he would not be able to be traded.  Trading the rights to a player whose contract expired simply doesn't happen.

With that said, we are not starting from scratch and this has been done many times according to those who have been here since the beginning so it should be allowed to continue to happen each year until restricted FA begins.

[Chuck (Philadelphia Astros)]

I agree with KC.

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

I can put a poll up and get an actual vote on this topic from all 15 owners. If anything were to change then it wouldn't be effective until next offseason.